Shao Antony Alfred v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 3607/2019 [2025] HKCFI 799 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 3607 of 2019
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu made on 10 February 2025:
Observations for the Applicant: 1.By Form 86 (“Form 86”) filed on 4 December 2019, the Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 24 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”)[1] refusing his late filing on 26 November 2018 of a Notice of Appeal/ Petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 17 September 2018, which rejected the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (USM). 2.The Applicant has mistakenly named “USM” as a proposed respondent and “T.C.A.B” as a proposed interested party. I have amended Form 86 on my own motion to correct these. 3.The Applicant is absent from the oral hearing. I have reminded myself of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Abdus Salam [2019] HKCA 1091. I have considered the Board’s reasons for its refusal as set out comprehensively in the Board’s Decision with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, applying an enhanced standard as required by law in view of the seriousness of the issues at hand. It is plain and obvious that the Applicant’s intended challenge of such decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success at all (see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Another (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676). 4.It is incumbent for an applicant to point out the procedural or other public law errors allegedly committed by the Board. However, the Applicant has not identified his grounds for judicial review (see Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21/2015 (dated 22 December 2016) at §142). His supporting affirmation has merely exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision and mentioned nothing else. Taking these matters into account, I am satisfied that the Leave Application is an abuse and the Applicant has no real intention to pursue it. Dismissal for want of prosecution is an available course to take where there has been abuse thus rendering there to be an abuse of process (see Re Abdus Salam (supra) at §16, referring to Re Syed Ahmed Rafiq [2018] HKCA 178). 5.For these reasons, I make an order that the action herein for leave be dismissed for want of prosecution. Dated the 9th day of April 2025
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Form CALL-1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment